Transcript comparisons

  

These are some comparison notes, for anyone interested, from some of the transcripts from Luke Mitchell's trial. A comparison is made between the information in the transcripts and information out there in the public domain. The purpose of this is not to attempt to convince anyone of guilt or innocence - but to highlight the trial facts.

(IB = Innocents Betrayed by Dr Sandra Lean)

KT - Page 169 IB

"The claim that he was planning to visit her again in July 2003 was based on Corinne’s plan to holiday in the same place – a plan that had since been cancelled. Jodi and Luke were, in fact, planning a sleepover at a friend’s house the following weekend as part of a birthday celebration – the very weekend the prosecution alleged Luke would be going to see (KT). None of the available evidence supported the claim that Luke was seeing another girl"

Corinne's Transcript 13/01/2005 pages 2263 and 2264

P2263: Right, was he supposed to be visiting K at (hometown) in the course of summer 2003? - Yes, he was supposed to be going up there.

Was he supposed to be staying? - He was supposed to be staying at K's, yes

For how long?- I wasn't sure, probably a week.

Page 2264: Do you see in the middle of that page that it records you having told the Police that Luke had been due...had been intending to go to (K's hometown) this weekend, 5th July, to stay with C and K, D'you see that? - Yes

It is also agreed that Luke spent Saturday night on the phone to KT. 

Porn on the computer

P318 IB - "It's plain to see Shane admitted no such thing".

” Shane originally told investigators he was looking at car sites - the computer records demonstrated that the links to pornographic sites each connected for a few seconds, indicating that they were, almost certainly, pop-ups"

Shane's transcript 12/01/2005 page 2042

Okay. So should we understand that you were browsing through pictures that were available accessing the Hun site (*A porn directory, as he previously agreed) - Yes

And does that mean, Mr Mitchell, that you were watching pornography on your computer that day? - Yes

And that's just after returning home from work? - yes

Page 2060: Right and as you've got to the stage where you wanted to look at the car related site?  - yes

Were the porn sites still open? - No they were closed down

Page 2061: Shane: Well normally I don't look at porn and look at the car sites at the same time, I look at them one at a time.

The knife being handed in to Police 

P224 IB - "She later remembered where it was and handed it to Luke’s solicitor. The solicitor’s statement, confirming the handing over of the knife to the police, was in the defence papers."

Jibber Jabber Podcast 28/02/21 - Dr Lean states that Corinne remembered where the knife was the next day, and handed it to the solicitor, who handed it to Police.

Corinne's Transcript 13/01/2005 Look with me please at defence label number...is that it (the knife)? - It looks like it yeah

Yes, well you'll understand that it appeared just on the eve of the trial? (seven months after the search) - Well Nigel must have given it to you then.

A long walk to Justice, by Scott Forbes page 919

"Records show the knife was handed in to Police by Luke's solicitor, Nigel Beaumont, who gave a statement confirming that". 

"The 'never been found knife' was shown to Luke Mitchell in Police photographs on August 14th 2004"

The knife wasn't handed in until the evening after the trial - which was 7 months after the knife pouch with the writing was found. It was found on April 14th 2004 - so could not have been the same knife shown to Luke in Police photographs in August 2003 - the photographs referred to in this book, of Luke's knife, were shown to him during the section 14 interview on 14th August 2003 - not 2004. 

Shane believed he got home from work at around 4.40pm 

IB p304 - Shane was completely up-front about having forgotten that was what he did, or perhaps because the later time of Shane arriving home fell perfectly into the hands of officers building a case in which it could be claimed Luke may not have gone home from school but headed directly for the woodland strip instead."

"Amending the time of his return to the family home to around 4.40pm to account for stopping off at the friend’s house, Shane’s updated account was supported by the friend"

Shane's transcript 12/01/2005 page 2032

And you got in about 15 minutes later, which would be between 5 to 5 and 5 o'clock? - Right

Does that sound about right? - That sounds about right

13/01/2005 page 2165 - Okay the second statement, July 7th one, was the one where you told Police you were home about 5 to 5? - Yes

And was that right? - Yes, I was home at 5 to 5

Did he see Luke?

Page 304 IB: 

"He did recall, once prompted, the burnt pies, although he was dependent on his mother and brother for confirmation of the day in question. The response to this addition to his account was catastrophic for Luke – by the time the case came to court, it was used to claim that Shane and Corinne had conspired to create a cover story for Luke." 

and

Page 308 IB:  "The way the prosecuting QC went about this line of questioning backed Shane down blind alley after blind alley with questions designed to elicit strict “yes” or “no” answers until he got what he wanted - an apparent agreement that during the whole period and right up to trial, Shane had never remembered whether Luke was at home or not. That was never the case, but the information was so successfully manipulated that it appeared to be so."

Page 318 IB: "He told the court that he did see Luke when he (Shane) came down for tea, but the police would not believe him because he had not said so in his first statement"

Shane's Transcripts 12/01/2005 page 2144 Well just think about it. And bear in mind the discussion we've just been through? - I genuinely do not remember seeing my brother.

Transcript 13/01/2005 page 2170 (Talking about the mash tatties and burnt pies statement) 

Quoting Shane's July 7th (amended) statement with DC Michelle Lindsay: "Luke was still at the cooker mashing the tatties. I could smell burnt steak pies. It was a tinge in the smell. I said alright to Luke, I didn't mention the burnt...the burning smell as I didn't want to insult him. He was pretty happy..."

Shane responds to this: "When I was giving this statement to Michelle Lindsay, I couldn't remember, I was still shaken up. And she was prompting me, she says right Shane, you had tatties for dinner, how did the tatties get there? Picture it in your minds eye, did you see your brother.....and then she wrote down Luke was making the tatties".

Referring to the statement, Shane is asked "It's not right is it?" - "No"

Page: 2238: And is it at the end of the day your position- is it, correct me if I'm wrong - you can't remember if Luke was in the house or not? - yes

Did Luke have a Parka? 

IB page 222 "These were recorded, transcribed interrogations. Where did the dozens of witnesses who saw Luke in a German army shirt go? Their statements were never released to the defence and they were never called to give evidence. It may have been that they never existed in the first place (since their statements were not in the defence papers) and those officers, on August 14th, whose behaviour was later described by appeal court judges as “outrageous and to be deplored,” were prepared to use anything, even outright lies, to try to force a confession out of a fifteen year-old boy. "

Corinne's Transcripts pages 2307 - 2315 - There are 8 witnesses, all named, who say they'd seen Luke wearing a parka jacket. Their relationship to Luke is also notes, as well as the time that they said they saw Luke wearing a parka. 

Perverting the course of justice charges - jury 'not informed' 

ALWTJ (A long walk to justice) page 870 "While Corrine Mitchell was on the stand the court was cleared for legal arguments and the charges of perverting the course of justice were dropped".

Transcript page 2260 - Corinne's charges are dropped and there is no mention of the Jury being removed or court being cleared, this is done in the middle of questioning and the questioning resumes - with the jury present.

Dock identification - "But his head is completely different"

IB 130 Lorraine Fleming’s dock identification was particularly outrageous. Asked by the prosecution QC if she could identify, in the court, the person she saw that day, she said: “Not sure.” Encouraged by the same QC to say if she could recognise someone in court who resembled him, perhaps from a different angle or perspective, she replied: “Yes, but his head is completely different.” Unbelievably, that was accepted as a positive identification.

Transcript 01/12/04 It would appear that the witness had not yet been asked if she could identify him in court, when she replied that she wasn't sure, this was in response to whether she would recognise him if she saw him again in the flesh and before she was asked to look around the court room. At no point did the witness appear to reply "yes, but his head is completely different". She did say that his hair looked different.

(The intention of this point is not to argue whether this witness testimony was accurate or not, just to point out the what was actually said).

The German army shirt 

Innocents Betrayed page 222: Where did the dozens of witnesses who saw Luke in a German army shirt go? Their statements were never released to the defence and they were never called to give evidence.

Innocents Betrayed page 127: Just before six o’clock, Luke was identified by people who knew him, sitting on a wall at the end of his street, 400 – 500 metres further along the Newbattle Road, wearing completely different clothes (baggy jeans, green bomber jacket with orange lining and distinctive, light coloured snowboarding boots). 

Innocents Betrayed page 207:

By August 14th, the police appeared to be convinced that Luke had “disposed of” a German army shirt which, they said, “several witnesses” had described seeing him wearing the evening of the murder. That particular line of reasoning was dropped when it was pointed out that the “missing” shirt was actually in police possession. 

A more credible explanation, based on all of the available evidence, is that there was no parka, German army shirt or fishing clothes belonging to Luke on June 30th and that he was wearing the bomber jacket the whole day and evening, up to the point that Jodi’s body was found.

02/12/04 transcript 

Andrew Holburn, one of the three boys who saw Luke at around 6pm at the entrance to Newbattle Abbey crescent on Monday June 30th 2003, describes the clothing he believes Luke was wearing:

In his first statement to Police he described:

"Dark blue baggy jeans and a dark green shirt...it was definitely a shirt, not a jacket. I think it was buttoned-up and I couldn't see anything underneath it. It was down to the waist of his jeans, and baggy."

Transcript page 590 - The witness is read back a statement which is believed to be his very first statement from 9th July 2003:

"Luke was wearing dark blue baggy jeans and a dark green shirt". 

"It was definitely, definitely a shirt, not a jacket". 

Jodi's gran said she 'just did' when asked how she knew to go to the path

In a video interview with Tweet street Scotland on YouTube (link here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_V2EK3gTQOw&t=3300s, at 46 minutes, 40 seconds) Scott Forbes states:

Donald Findlay asked in the High court "How did you know to travel from Mayfield, 3 miles away, 2.5 miles away, to go directly to Roan's dyke path?" She replied, "I just did". You see, he asked her again "how did you know?" - "I just did". 

This same claim is made in IB page 145/146: "Is it possible that Judith told the trio that Luke would be on the path? Technically, yes, but none of them gave that as the reason they headed straight to the path, even when they were asked directly, in court. Alice Walker, for example, said, “We just did.”

Cross examination by Donald Findlay begins on page 1132 of Alice Walker's transcripts from 13/12/2004. At no point does Findlay ask the question stated by Scott Forbes. At no point did Alice Walker respond "I just did" or "we just did". She didn't say that once, never-mind twice.

Through-out the transcripts, Alice Walker explains her reasoning behind going to the path that evening. She explains that she believed Jodi would meet Luke there - at no point does she answer "I just did", or "we just did".

The deleted call register and the twenty seven minutes past midnight text 

IB Page 159: "A civilian employee of Lothian and Borders Police analysed the mobile phone’s call records during the investigation. He said that only one number – Corinne’s - was stored in the phone’s recently made calls list. Asked by the prosecuting QC why no more calls were listed, Mr Morris said: “Basically because the call register had been deleted,” adding that “in all probability” the register had been deleted just after half past midnight in the early hours of July 1st, 2003… when the phone was already in the possession of the police.

The police officer who took Luke’s phone from him in the car park was not wearing gloves and the phone was not securely packaged in a sterile environment – instead, the officer switched the phone back on to call Luke’s mum."

IB page 160: "But not only was the call log deleted after the police took Luke’s phone - a text was also sent while the phone was in the hands of police investigators (who were prepared to lie about Luke checking his voicemail immediately after Jodi’s body was found – see Chapters 15 & 16), so it can no longer be accepted at face value that it was Luke, himself, who deleted those earlier texts. If police officers were interfering with phone evidence so early in the investigation, there can be little confidence in the reliability of any claims later made on the basis of that evidence."

IB Page 227: 

DC1: Right, not only do you phone your voicemail, at 27 minutes past midnight, again, your girlfriend is lying dead after you had found her, you send someone a text 

Luke: No 

DC1: No? At 27 minutes past midnight, you sent someone a text messsage 

Luke continued to deny having sent any text message at this time. He was told it was a joke text and still he denied it. He was absolutely correct - by 27 minutes past 12 - according to all statements, the phone was in the possession of the police."

Scott Forbes also made the claim in a YouTube interview (02/10/22), that Police tampered with Luke's phone: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yamxg0YT7Rs&t=6019s

What the transcripts say:

15/12/2004 - Evidence of DC Alan Towers 

Page 15 - A statement from Luke Mitchell is read out where he explains that he deleted the call log on his phone in case he "accidently made an outgoing call". 

17/12/2004 - Evidence of DC Alan Towers 

Page 6 - The Police witness explains that when Luke was in the back of the Police Land Rover, he was speaking on his mobile phone. His colleague asked Luke who he was speaking to and he explained it was him mum. 

There were two calls to Luke's mum from his mobile - in a second call, an officer explained to Luke's mum that Luke would be taken to the station. 

The first call to Luke's mum's mobile (while he was in the Police Land Rover) was at 00:31:34, just after half past twelve. The call lasted about two and a half minutes. 

The second call, at almost twenty to one was also to his mum - with a duration of 50 seconds. 

Luke's phone had clearly not yet been taken from him at 00:31:34 if he was in the Land Rover calling his mum the first time (they must have taken it after the first call, seeing as they gave him it back for the second call to his mum).

The 00:27 text was clearly before the first call to his mum and before the Police had taken his phone. The text was not sent while the phone was in the hands of Police investigators, as Innocents Betrayed states. If a text was sent - it wasn't by the Police.

Link to blog with transcripts:

 

https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2023/12/luke-mitchells-mobile-call-register-and.html?m=1     

The Marylin Manson DVD

IB 230: "The week after Jodi's murder, Luke picked up a music magazine in a local supermarket - inside was a "bonus" promotional Marylin Manson DVD (not the full version)."

The transcripts confirm that Luke bought the DVD TWO days after the murder on July 2nd. (Research confirms that Kerrang did not have a bonus Manson DVD at that time)

https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-black-dahlia-connection.html

The log burner

IB page 217

Luke was asked, during the interrogation on July 4th, if the log burner was used on the night of June 30th. (Note, it was not a “stove,” it was a semi-circular brick construction built around a barbecue base around 10” high and 14” in diameter. The brick wind shield was around 30” high). He said he thought his mother and brother had a fire that night. During the August 14th interrogation, Luke was accused of lying, the police claiming he said Corinne and Shane did use the burner, but they were saying they did not. During a heated exchange, Luke pointed out that he had been out that evening, so he could not have said for sure whether or not the burner was in use. The interrogating officers continued to insist Luke had told them, definitely, that his mother and brother had a fire. 

Sgt Thomson's transcript page 1716: Luke states that his mum and brother did have a fire - this is from the August 14th interrogation. This is just one section from the interview and he may have later argued that he couldn't say for sure as he was out, but he did say during this interview, that his mum and brother had a fire that night.

Link: https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2024/02/sergeant-thomson-30122004-day-two-of.html

DC Michele Lindsay asked Luke to draw a sketch?

IB page 257 What was Michelle Lindsay’s “specific role”? At what point did those officers tell Corinne or Luke that Michelle Lindsay was part of the investigating team, sent into their home to collect any evidence she could against them and that anything Michelle Lindsay took from them (including sketches she asked Luke to draw) may be used in evidence against Luke?

DC Lindsay transcript page 1438

"And did she do anything else to explain the route that she would have taken?" - "Yes, he offered to draw me sketches of the route."

IB page 231 

It was she who told the Mitchell family, a week into the investigation that Jodi had not been sexually assaulted.

DC Lindsay transcript page 1449

"On 2nd July when you went to the Mitchell household, you went there on the instruction on a Detective Inspector, is that right?" - "That's correct sir."

"Did you, when you went to Luke's house, speak to him and his mum?" - "I did sir"

"Did you tell them about the circumstances of the crime?" - "I did sir"

"Did you tell them so far as you were aware, Jodi's death was the result of a knife attack?" - "That's correct sir, I was instructed to tell them that."

"But there was no evidence of a sexual assault?" - "That's correct sir".

It would appear here that she advised of this on 2nd July, two days after the murder, not a week in to the investigation.

https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2024/03/dc-lindsay-testimony-20th-and-21st.html